Leaderboard

Ok. Seriously, what is your problem? You do great damage to the proponent position every time you open your mouth and harangue someone. Why you cannot state your case without being an abusive ogre about it is beyond me. What more do you think that adds to your point? Nothing. It distracts from it greatly.

I continue to show interest for the simple fact I want them to exist . I enjoy mysteries . Of all the cryptids that I am aware, in my opinion this one could exist theoretically if not logically. The biggest asset of those who seek the creature is at the very least it is done outside in the great outdoors. That is never a bad thing.

It's a primitive man. Whether or not it ran on a separate string from humans or not - or for how long - I have no idea. Then we get to older narratives of Zana - and the crap that's coming out about what she really was is all over the map. One says DNA suggested she was 100% human, with West African genes but couldn't find any known,modern African group like that. She was 6'6", very muscular and powerfully built - never talked - and really hairy all over with long, thick body hair. Her son Khwit's skull was examined and anthropologist M.A. Kolodieva described it as " the closest to the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series, a combination of modern and ancient features. Another DNA determination says she was a subspecies of modern humans. Of course, they don't have her DNA, but DNA taken from her children. Which would indicate she was close enough to humans to interbreed. So anyone hunting a dumb animal - you're never going to find one - because it's not dumb, and it's not an animal. It's a primitive man.

I like bigfootin' because every once in a while you get to see someone have an epic meltdown in public.

Now, you just might be getting somewhere. Any rigorous scientific examination of the evidence will undoubtedly expose the circumstantial and ambiguous nature of that evidence and thus undermine, somewhat, the foundation of the claim itself. Understood. I don't think the peer review process is immune to anything. I do, however, hear a lot of peer review bashing from proponents with no alternative offering. If not peer review, then where should one show his/her work and have it checked? You are suggesting Internet forums? Book reviews? Technology could enhance peer review. At the very least, it makes it more accessible to a larger number of peers. But that speaks to telecommunications in general application, not just specifically peer review. I think peer review, at it's core, will remain largely unchanged. The chief complaints I hear with peer review are not about the process, but about the people. And I am sure there is something to that, but that does not mean we circumvent a necessary step and adopt a non-expert, public opinion process instead. That idea is lunacy and would bring scientific advancement to a sudden stop.

How large of you.

Agreed. There is no reason bigfoot cannot exist. I just don't think the evidence indicates that it does.

Failing really badly? That's kind of a joke when compared to the proponents camp. We have yet to provide any rock solid evidence to date and ZERO PROOF. We have 50 years since the PGF and a pile of reports, AWESOME!!! With my belief in BF, obviously I believe this is a proverbial "race" that can be won, yet currently, skeptics are running 5 feet in front of us, backwards, with a grin.

I've also posted on a drum and percussion forum, yet I am a guitarist. It's a crazy world, innit?

Self-publication is the coziest of niches for those involved. Such publications are obscure enough to exclude proper criticism and cater to the [minority] proponents who espouse them with on the face value of being about Sasquatch. Don Jeffery Meldrum with this RHI; Bill Munns with When Roger Met Patty -- ranked #497,339 in Amazon Book -- are both examples of individuals who enjoy the adulation of a small audience, while remaining insulated from criticism of the academic and scientific community. It's rather easy to remain uncontested when you pick and choose your audience and revel in obscurity.

He's having conversations with people who haven't posted here in years. What does that tell you?

That's why you can't find one.

^^^^^^ OS: I don't take Bigfoot seriously. What does your little think tank have to say about that?

I can think of 3 letters that are killing off new membership to the forum with his juvenile antics.

So, it seems that basically the response is if bigfoot proponents choose to avoid peer review in favor of books and bigfoot websites, then professional scientists should not expect any peer submissions dealing with bigfoot and should instead respond to the existing books and bigfoot website articles? That is where we have come so far. Note the response from proponents is not that bigfoot evidence should be presented in the proper channels, but that scientists should change the way things are done to accommodate bigfoot proponents. Why? Why should this happen? Why should there be fewer controls? Why should there be less transparency around methodology? Why should there be less access to the data? Why should all these, and more, be broken down in favor of bigfoot? Oh, right. Bias and taboo. I don't doubt that exists on some personal levels. I doubt that there is this all encompassing and smothering blanket of it, however. As recent examples have shown. Why should bigfoot get a special pass?

The only conclusion that matters to me is that I believe some of the witnesses and some of the evidence. Onward to 10,000 posts if you will! I would only suggest that no one should expect to know everything about anything at any given point. To each their own.. 8 )

Seems some want science to play on their field, with their ball, and their rules. If not, cry bloody murder that no one will play with them.

There's no one-stop shop. The first thing a sincere scientific effort will have to do is identify sources of information and of evidence. The second is to identify any biases associated with each source. For example, does any group that collects reports discard those that do not agree with its own perception, such as those revealing Bigfoot aggression. Also, the influence of anticipated profit on the source has to be considered as a bias. Expectation of profit by a group may also determine which reports they put forward and which they do not. Third, the likelihood of hoaxed and mistaken information needs to be determined. The sincere investigation will need to develop an objective protocol to evaluate each source and each item. Fourth, the statistical consistency of the information collected needs to be evaluated and cross-referenced. The goal is to separate the baby from the bath water. I'll also point out that the one hoax that has most damaged sincere scientific investigation of Bigfoot was not Bigfoot related. It was Piltdown Man. This had a dramatic impact on the scientific community.

dmaker - Where scientists should look was YOUR question, not mine. I gave you the answer about where they should look. Take it or leave it. MIB

Very true, but that cuts both ways. You, or any other proponent, fails to offer any evidence or proof of this taboo and bias that is constantly claimed. We do have Ketchum, who was accepted to Nature for review, but failed. This would seem to contradict you somewhat. Also, we seem to have no claims from scientific proponents of failed attempts to publish in peer reviewed journals. All we have is word of mouth about a vast taboo. But we do have contrasting examples and data such as the aforementioned Ketchum; or the very public Sykes study; or the fact that Meldrum is a fully tenured professor. And so on. I see this taboo talked a lot, but never demonstrated. But the main question I was asking is still unaddressed. Where then, if not peer review, should scientists address bigfoot evidence? The cry is that bigfoot evidence is ignored by mainstream science and that it all goes triumphant unless contested. Where should this take place then? Anyone can publish a book that says anything the author wants it to say. Surely we cannot expect good science to be done in books where the main purpose is to sell copies, not to test evidence. Should scientists go to bigfoot conventions and demand public debate? Where should professional scientists address bigfoot evidence? The constant claim is that they do not, but I see no venue, other than peer review, where they should be doing so, and when there is no bigfoot evidence proffered for peer review, then where should the review take place? Contrary to maybe what you did in grade six, a book review is not considered science. Here is a critique of Bindernagel for you DWA. By a Phd. https://philpapers.org/rec/BUHJAB (Josuah Blu Bluhs) From the opening paragraph: " Bigfoot has been discovered! That is the contention of this book. And while the proposal sounds ridiculous, it is not damning with faint praise to say that this is the most sophisticated book ever written supporting the claim that Bigfoot exists. There are other good ones—John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes among Us (Hancock, 1978) and John Bindernagel's previous book, North America's Great Ape (Beachcomber, 1998)—but none that range so widely or so deeply. It's a pity, then, that the book fails so badly to prove its thesis. " The rest of the review is behind a journal pay wall. $10, I happily paid. I like reading--contrary to what you may think of me, DWA. The gist of it is that Bindernagel cherry picked his data and simply excluded anything that contradicts the consistency of the reports. Of which there is no small amount. Sounds an awful lot like someone we all know. But still, this critique is not a scientific rebuttal. This is no substitute for peer review. It is not much different than the bickering and back and forth that occurs here. Especially so since pretty much everything DWA says is a parroting of Bindernagel.